AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant, a Company located at Panchkula, had booked various consignments of Gasket Washers on 21.6.1996, 12.9.1996 and 11.10.1996 valued at Rs. 2,13,676/-. M/s. Economic Transport Organisation, Sector 26, Chandigarh, the respondent, was to transport and deliver all these consignments to Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company (TELCO), Jamshedpur. It has been alleged that the respondent transporter failed to make the aforesaid promised door delivery. THE claim put forward by the complainant in para 14 of the complaint is briefly reproduced as under:
THE respondent transporters have contested this claim and filed a written reply, wherein it has been averred that the complaints is bad for non-compliance of Sections 193 and 194 of the Companies Act, that the complaint has no locus standi and it could not be adjudicated without impleading the consignee as a respondent. It has further been averred that the complainant is trying to drag the transporter into the real dispute which is between the consignor and the consignee. It has been specifically mentioned that the consignment did reach Jamshedpur within the stipulated period, and it was taken to the door of the TELCO for effecting delivery, but the respondent carrier was made to wait outside the premise for a couple of days and ultimately the delivery was not accepted. Findingh no other alternative, the respondent carrier brought back the goods to their godown and thereafter again took the goods for delivery to the consignee who postponed the matter on one pretext or the other, but the delivery was not accepted on account of the reasons best known to the consignor and the consignee. It has further been averred that the respondent is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 70,000/- as demurrage. THE goods were still lying in the premises of the respondent carrier. It has specifically been averred that there are complicated questions of fact and law and dispute of such a nature should be tried by the Civil Court. The various consignments which are in dispute and enumerated in para 5 of the complaint are reproduced as under: I. Consignment Note No. NZ-336-000324 dated 22.6.1996 S. No. Bill No. & Date Material Quantity Amount 1. 73 dated 26.6.1996 Gasket Washer 313 188 1579 4000 Nos. 483.00 2. 74 dated 21.6.1996 Gasket for Lower Cover 2505 3014 5301 4300 Nos. 8394.00 3. 75 dated 21.6.1996 Gasket 2520 2012 5301 1000 Nos. 1340.00 Rs. 10217.00 II. Consignment Note NO. NZ-336-0879 dated 13.9.1996 S. No. Bill No. & Date Material Quantity Amount 1. 135 dated 12.9.1996 Gasket Washer 312 188 1579 4000 Nos. 483.00 2. 136 dated 12.9.1996 Gaskets 2520 2012 5301 2000 Nos. 2680.00 3. 137 dated 12.9.1996 Gasket for 2505 3014 5301 lower cover 2700 Nos. 5270.00 4. 138 dated 12.9.1996 Gasket Oil Cover 312 188 1479 2650 Nos. 52952.00 5. 139 dated 12.9.1996 Timing Gear Gasket 312 015 0580 1800 Nos. 16590.00 6. 140 dated 12.9.1996 Gasket 2505 3012 5301 2250 Nos. 18893.00 Total 96868.00 3. Consignment Note No. NZ-336-1112 dated 11.10.1996 S. No. Bill No. & Date Material Quantity Amount 1. 164 dated 11.1996 Gaskets 2505 3012 5301 2500 Nos. 18175.00 2. 165 dated 11.10.1996 Gasket Oil cover 312 188 1479 1000 Nos. 17300.00 3. 166 dated 11.10.1996 Gasket Oil cooler 352 188 0780 450 Nos. 10323.00 4. 167 dated 11.10.1996 Gasket Oil cooler 352 188 0780 2650 Nos. 60791.00 Total 106589.00 Total Amount Rs. 213674.00
It may also be pointed out here that the consignee has not been impleaded as a party and there is nothing to establish prima facie that the price of the goods or even a part thereof has ever been paid by the consignee either to the complainant or to his Bankers. The ''copy of the consignee'' has not been placed on record by the complainant. One important condition printed as a caution in the Annexure C1 the consignment note, is reproduced as under : "This consignment will not be detained, delivered, re-routed or re-booked without consignee Bank written permission, will be delivered at the destination." A perusal of this caution indicates that may be the consignee was unable or changed its mind to deposit the price of the consignment in the Bank. The complainant has not brought on record any communication it received from the consignee.
AFTER considering the various pleas raised in the complaint and the written reply, referred to above, we are of the view that such a complicated claim should have been lodged in the Civil Court. Our attention has been drawn to Synco Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Economic Transport Organisation, 1993 (1) CLT 179, where the National Commission observed that such a matter could be determined by the State Commission. In the aforesaid case, wherein the goods were booked at Shivganj in Rajasthan for Cuttack in Orissa, the original receipts were handed over after collection from the Bank and payment was specifically made to the Bank. It was even after clearance from the Bank that the transporter appeared to be deficient in not delivering the goods to the consignee. Such an important piece of evidence is wanting in the case now in hand. The conclusion is that the important plea taken in para 2 of the reply that Civil Court is the competent Forum to adjudicate the matter between the parties, where recording of evidence and detailed cross-examination from both sides shall be necessitated and complicated questions of fact & law have arisen, prevails and it is held that the complainant may approach the Civil Court. Complaint disposed of.